News: Plane Goes down.

B

Burnesto

Molten Core Raider
2,142
126
I'd imagine it's not feasible or cost effective to improve the survivability of large aircraft since crashes aren't that common.
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
The Edge_sl said:
Yup, and that was not my argument. Clearly things have been done to prevent crashes, but crashes are still going to happen. What I haven't seen is something to improve the survivability of a crash.
Click to expand...
Again, it's just not feasible. For a crash like this, what could be done? The size of parachute required would be hundreds and hundreds of feet across, and likely wouldn't have had enough time/altitude to deploy (even with people base jumping you need hundreds of feet). Outside of preventing the crash in the first place, there's no feasible way to design an airplane to survive that crash other than things like ejection seats, which don't make any sense with commercial airliners.
 
Lithose

Lithose

Buzzfeed Editor
25,946
113,035
The Edge_sl said:
Yup, and that was not my argument. Clearly things have been done to prevent crashes, but crashes are still going to happen. What I haven't seen is something to improve the survivability of a crash.
Click to expand...
There have been multiple attempts to add crash "resistance" systems....Like one where they attempted to put a chemical in the jet fuel where a catalyst could be released and instantly render it inert. Another was some kind of on board super foam, to prevent fire. (There was a whole discovery channel show on it.) In the end though, as Eomer has been saying, it's just not feasible given the logistics of passenger travel--in individual planes, they've made it safe, but they can't give everyone an ejection seat on an airliner.

However, again like Eomer said, flying is actually one of the safest ways to move people back and forth. Just the advances in auto-pilot systems, which stop idiot humans from fucking up, have brought actual deaths down to a very very tiny amount. People say it all the time, but it bears repeating--you are far, far more likely to die in a car or even walking by a road, than on a plane.

The fact is the human body is fragile, if we want to go above a certain speed, there will be risks--the amount of risk you take for going 450+MPH in an airplane is incredible considering.
 
Quineloe

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,463
crew was 4 pilots, the load master and two mechanics. Taliban claim they've shot it down.
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
44,599
93,127
Eomer_sl said:
I was going to say, that must have been a solid 20 second moment of complete and utter hopelessness for the pilots.

Out of curiosity, in general terms, would whoever loaded and secured the cargo have been on the plane still?
Click to expand...
Sad thing is it looks like the pilot regained control and leveled it out, just ran out of altitude.
 
D

Dabamf_sl

shitlord
1,472
0
Conspiracy. I heard that that plane already crashed in Iraq years ago. You can tell from the explosion that it's C4 and not jet fuel that's exploding.
 
F

Fazana_sl

shitlord
1,071
0
ohkcrlho_sl said:
According to National Airlines, the U.S.-based cargo carrier, Flight NCR102, had just taken off from Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan en route to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, when the crash occurred.
why was it going to Dubai?does the US now have a base there?
Click to expand...
They probably have one or use local facilities so much it might as well be declared a US base. The UK has bases dotted about the middle east that don't have much attention brought to them so I would be surprised if the US doesn't do the same.

Beneath the cloudless desert skies of the United Arab Emirates, a squadron of RAF Tornado jets is currently based at Al-Minhad, a discreet and well-guarded airbase south of Dubai.

In Bahrain, at another military base well out of the public eye and set apart from that country's simmering unrest, Royal Navy personnel man the naval HQ known as the UK Maritime Component Command (UKMCC), directing Britain's minesweepers and frigates around the Gulf, in co-ordination with the far larger US Navy 5th Fleet headquarters.
Click to expand...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22333555
 
Eomer

Eomer

Trakanon Raider
5,472
272
Big Phoenix_sl said:
Sad thing is it looks like the pilot regained control and leveled it out, just ran out of altitude.
Click to expand...
I dunno, looked like it was in a full stall pretty much the entire time, and the pilot likely had little or no control of the plane.
 
The Edge

The Edge

Lord Nagafen Raider
763
262
Lithose_sl said:
There have been multiple attempts to add crash "resistance" systems....Like one where they attempted to put a chemical in the jet fuel where a catalyst could be released and instantly render it inert. Another was some kind of on board super foam, to prevent fire. (There was a whole discovery channel show on it.) In the end though, as Eomer has been saying, it's just not feasible given the logistics of passenger travel--in individual planes, they've made it safe, but they can't give everyone an ejection seat on an airliner.

However, again like Eomer said, flying is actually one of the safest ways to move people back and forth. Just the advances in auto-pilot systems, which stop idiot humans from fucking up, have brought actual deaths down to a very very tiny amount. People say it all the time, but it bears repeating--you are far, far more likely to die in a car or even walking by a road, than on a plane.

The fact is the human body is fragile, if we want to go above a certain speed, there will be risks--the amount of risk you take for going 450+MPH in an airplane is incredible considering.
Click to expand...
Not feasible is a bullshit excuse. I want some Demolition Man foam to protect my ass!

 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
23,366
33,437
Big Phoenix_sl said:
Sad thing is it looks like the pilot regained control and leveled it out, just ran out of altitude.
Click to expand...
Nah. Load shifting the CG aft that much destroys all control stability and produces a very violent and permanent stall, there's literally just not enough weight proportionately on the wings. They could have had 20,000 feet and still would have hit the ground unless they were able to fix the load issue in flight.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,560
1,318
I know planes can flush their fuel (something about them being too heavy to land with a full tank). Isn't there a way to flush the cargo if things go south? Or would it be worthless in a case like this because the flushing mechanism would likely be fubar'd by the moving cargo?
 
Fadaar

Fadaar

That guy
10,456
11,396
Without enough altitude and airspeed there's no way a jet that size could regain control fast enough. When all the weight shifts to the ass end you'd need to trim pitch (ailerons/stabilators) full forward (leading edge up) for even a prayer of a chance at level flight. Flight controls on military fighters are probably one of the coolest systems to learn about, but a giant pain in the donkey dick to work on. Thankfully the F-15E isn't too terrible in that department for me
smile.png
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
Szlia_sl said:
I know planes can flush their fuel (something about them being too heavy to land with a full tank). Isn't there a way to flush the cargo if things go south? Or would it be worthless in a case like this because the flushing mechanism would likely be fubar'd by the moving cargo?
Click to expand...
If it was an actual military transport and they had some (a lot) more height thenmaybethey could have opened the tail door and dropped it out the back. Possibly. A very small chance.

Cargo 747s generally load from the front or side, though, so no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.